Member Info for BuenaVista

V-S, how do you know/why do you think it was a worked sell?

All going according to plan then...

...or Myles using his trading pot to buy back in after that depressing tweet.

Spot on! She should be working for nothing and spend her time in the US harassing the FDA to approve AVA6000 for all cancer indications. Idiot.

Pretty sure they were talking rugs.

#WeCanDoThis #I'mPassingWind

Absolutely correct! Serial underachievers since er... since April. Brilliant analysis.

Well Rambo23 I would argue that announcing that you've done what you'd said you'd do (two instances given by avctIPmatters) is not SP-shifting good news; maybe a spike, as we've seen in the past, but nothing permanent - that would require news of revenue.

I agree that a couple of RNS's saved (and remember CC has been combining trial news with other news in the past) is a drop in the ocean, but might be indicative of wider cost savings which could extend Avacta's funds to that of a going concern come the next audit.

@Rambo23, why do you regard it as so important to raise the MCap by a few million, which I read as raising the SP by a few pence? The SP will do whatever it will do until there's news of a good revenue stream, at which point it should rerate. Any good news boost will, as we've seen, only be an opportunity to trade.

The current management may not be RNS'ing to this level of development. RNS's cost and I'd hope that CC has implemented strict cost control. Conversely, Phase 1b may be being held up by the FDA/MHRA's bureaucracy.

I rather got the impression from the data released this autumn that the PDC candidate had already been selected (AVA6103). We'll not get to know precisely what structure it is until the patent is published, something which CC may or may not RNS. Anyway, we don't need to know. BP will want to know and will start synthesising as soon as the first patent on PDCs is published - but hopefully the first patent family (that is, the same patent filed at different country patent offices) won't specify the lead compound...

CC talked at the R&D day about waiting on disclosure of structure(s) until the IP is published and if you think about it, the patent she was referring to was written some time ago, based on the preclinical work on the AVA6100 PDC series as reported at EORTC, and it is likely that a) the lead compound had been identified and specified in the patent or b) the patent covers the general AVA6100 series without specifying a lead compound. If the former then the lead compound, AVA6103, had already been selected, and given when it would have been written up that would probably have been pre-H2/2024. If the latter then that lead compound would need to be selected post-EORTC in H2/2024 and then a patent specifying it written and filed. Such a patent would not be published (putting the structure into the public domain) for over a year.

FDA and BP are interested in real data, and can evaluate datasets. Cherry picking to suite a narrative may hoodwink the investment community but I doubt whether it adds MCap value in the longrun.

Here is a granted (that's to say an actual in-force patent) by the same inventors in the same field (scaffold proteins):

https://patents.google.com/patent/EP3649151B1/en - A chocolate orange to anyone who can make head or tail of it.😉

This new patent application, EP4467650, will be a further development of the earlier one.

Brilliant! This is what the 'comparison' is done on:

"Futura Medical (LON:FUM) and Avacta Group (LON:AVCT) are both small-cap medical companies, but which is the superior investment? We will contrast the two companies based on the strength of their profitability, media sentiment, community ranking, analyst recommendations, dividends, risk, valuation, earnings and institutional ownership."

Clearly there is an advantage opportunity here for those investors who know what these 'generic' small-cap medical companies actually do, the likelihood of their approach succeeding and the relative sizes of the markets they are addressing!

Do not feed the troll and it will go away.

It's on the Avacta homepage. https://avacta.com/

SP will not materially improve until there is assured funding otherwise there is the possibility of another placing, so there's no incentive to buy in now when the SP could be lower come February/March. However, it's not totally clear what the financial situation is, particularly if the expense of running Phase 1b has not kicked in yet. I don't say they have or would deliberately delay the start of Phase 1b but it would be a prudent possibility if it meant they were able to stretch the existing funds out to April 2026 or whatever it is the auditors require in order to sign the company off as a going concern.

Another reason why Phase 1b may not have started yet (and we don't know whether it has or not) may be because approvals from the FDA and the MHRA for the trial dose(s) and frequency/ies have not been received yet. Approval from both would be required if trials in the UK and US are to be carried out using the same protocol. Apparently CC said that the MHRA was slow so maybe all the patients will be in the US. However, there is a bigger catchment area using the UK hospitals and trials are a lot cheaper to do in the UK. Supply of formulated AVA6000 may be another issue ...there are lots of technical reasons why starting Phase 1b might be delayed. It would be good to get a confirmatory RNS though saying it had started, where it will be done and what the dosing regimen is.

CC was appointed as Non-executive Director to the Board on 21 March 2022, as Head of R&D on 19 January 2024, and as CEO on 30 April 2024. The Gen Two (PDCs) and Gen Three (AffDCs) work certainly started before 2024 so it's questionable how much input CC had to the current pipeline as one of the non-executive directors.

The recently disclosed pipeline is indeed the work of brilliant scientists and I doubt they really need their backs patting with presentation mugs - that's more an American thing than a British thing.

Something I noticed earlier this year that I didn't comment on, and no one else did that I saw, was CC saying "we designed AVA6000 to [be cleaved by FAP, only FAP, and only in the TME]". I paraphrase, particularly the FAP bit, but my point is that Avacta did not design AVA6000 and whilst CC may have been simplifying the situation, it was fundamentally dishonest to promote Bachovchin's work as being Avacta's own and it would have been more accurate to say "AVA6000 was designed to..." I found that claim rather disturbing.

"Liz began a photography bucket list appeal in January after being diagnosed with an aggressive desmoplastic small round cell tumour and was given between six months and three years to live. ...no charity specialising in the disease in the UK."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyj0013n1po

Desmoplastic small round cell tumour is a sarcoma that forms in the soft tissue of the abdomen and pelvis and is most common in young white men between the ages of 10 and 30. So this is one of the many varieties - what did Bill Tap say, 80, 120, 200? - of STS. It is a very rare cancer, with only a few hundred cases reported worldwide since its first description in 1989, so there will be no clinical trials for this indication. However, if the cancer has high FAP levels, clinicians could prescribe off-label once AVA6000 gains approval, as they could for other suitably susceptible STS indications.

All about it on Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmoplastic_small-round-cell_tumor

This happens at the start of every month, at least. Could be some employees get part-paid in shares?

Do not feed the troll and it will go away